I am also excited to see this proposal getting traction and attention from the broad community, and I’d like to offer my comments.
-
I find it very interesting that we are discussing at least three similar proposals in nature that aim to decentralize ecosystem growth activities in three regions of interest (Africa, India, and Latam). I would love for these three teams to create an open space to discuss their goals and find opportunities to collaborate, at least at the level of funding requests, shared transparency, and accountability.
-
I want to second @0xhuman thoughts. I think the proposal’s funding request is very high, and the focus is sparse. I would encourage reducing the focus areas and the funding ask.
-
My main concern is the team’s short experience working together as a DAO/organization. My suggestion again is to reduce the scope of the proposal, and the funding request, and to show evidence of completion before a consecutive proposal
-
I also want to echo @annaalexa thoughts on supporting this DAO to become independent. For that, I would like to see the other members of the multisig present in the conversation. I really appreciate @Aliu’s leadership here, and to me, it is really valuable that Regional Ecosystem Leads are part of DAOs to bridge decentralization efforts with Foundation goals. However, we need to make an effort to develop leadership outside the Foundation orbit. This is also a good moment to raise the issue of the lack of female and non-binary representation in the multisig.